• 举证的责任（onus of proof）属于诉方，诉方得证明某篇文章具有诽谤归责（libellous imputation）。这种归责可以几种方式出现： (a) The words are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning. The natural and ordinary meaning include the literal meaning of the words in question and the ordinary inferences which the ordinary person would make from them.  (b) Words can also be defamatory by virtue of a special meaning understood by people having knowledge of particular extrinsic facts. This is referred to as a legal innuendo.  (c) Defamation can be committed by way of juxtaposition. For example effigies may be created or the Plaintiff’s photograph may be printed alongside pictures of wanted criminals or his statue may be placed next to statues of criminals. (In suits for defamation, it is not enough to prove that the words were hurtful, insulting, abusive or vulgar. However, if vulgar or obscene words are used against a woman, there may be a possibility of a criminal action for outraging her modesty.) 3. A reasonable man or a right thinking member of society should regard the words as defamatory. The words should have a tendency to lower the Plaintiff and discredit him in the estimation of right thinking members of society. 4. There must be intention ‘to publish’ that is to disseminate the ideas. If the words were published without the authority of defendant, for example if a personal diary was stolen and published there is no defamation.
原告的舉證責任在此
何謂有毀謗傾向？就是以正常人的思考能力作為基準，會因為被告的發言/文章的用詞合理的引致【認為原告有做過XXX事】這種想法
原告需要證明的是這點
打個比方就是某人發表【ragnarok026曾經打傷morris43】的言論，而我只需要證明這段言論能造成其餘第三者合理的認為【ragnarok026曾經打傷morris43】甚至【ragnarok026是個喜歡行使暴力的暴力狂】，就完成了我這邊的舉證責任了
虽然法律强调发表的“意图”（intention），不过，有没有诽谤的意图却不是辩护的理由。你不能说，我只是转述别人所说的话（每一次的重复都可以构成新的起诉原因[cause of action]。） 你也不能说，你并无意图或动机（motive）针对起诉人，或者说，你话中所指的对象是另有其人而非案中的起诉人。如果起诉人能够证明，按照别人合理的了解，认为你所说的话是针对起诉人，就可构成诽谤。
引述資料的來源是否無訛核實，這就是被告的責任而不是原告的
當被告證實自己的言論屬實並且推翻原告的控訴前提后（無訛的事實引述不能視為毀謗），原告若要繼續告下去，舉證責任才會落在他身上（證明對方引述的資料是錯誤的）
| 
本周最热论坛帖子
发表于 26-6-2017 09:37 AM
1714 
36
